6 ms·

1 watt laser can burn through your eyeball. 1 watt regular LED is a fun Christmas decoration. Details matter. There are theories that radio waves can activate

1 watt laser can burn through your eyeball. 1 watt regular LED is a fun Christmas decoration. Details matter. There are theories that radio waves can activate small nerve fibres that are located closely to the edge of your skin, where EMF can penetrate, even if only couple millimetres deep. Those nerve fibres are often located near the mast cells, which form part of your innantr immune system, and have a two-way communication with your CNS via these fibers. Constant inflammation driven by mast cells is a proven cause of autoimmune disease and increased risks of cancer, osteoporosis, many other chronic illness. It’s not just ionisation that can do that. That’s only one mechanism. Induce enough inflammation and you could have risks of cancer go up, and not only locally, like skin cancer, but systemically as well, because the immune cells release mediators into the systemic circulation, and in rare cases even causes anaphylaxis, like with solar urticaria: https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/what-is-solar-urticaria https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/what-is-s...

SigmundA 5y ago
Cellphone transmitters are not coherent, they are like LED christmas decorations except lower power.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  False. Again.
  - SigmundA 5y ago
    Really so cellphones are actually microwave lasers, cool!
    - alexvoda 5y ago
      We do actually have microwave lasers, which IIRC predate lasers, called masers. Of course, there is no cellphone equipped with such a thing.
      - nuvious 5y ago
        Masers are cool. My dad worked in an optics lab that used Masers in college and they used Styrofoam for lenses because it's transparent in the microwave spectrum and induces refraction well.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- forum_ghost 5y ago
  >Cellphone transmitters are not coherent, they are like LED christmas decorations except lower power. The point is neither one produces ionizing radiation. There are other mechanisms by which non-ionizing radiation can induce cancers, such as the one I've described.
  - SigmundA 5y ago
    >There are other mechanisms by which non-ionizing radiation can induce cancers, such as the one I've described. Link please, there are no proven mechanisms such as you describe I am aware of. Your only link points to sun exposure and UVB rays which are near ionizing and cause cancer through DNA damage based on photon energy. Your example of a laser vs led is on point because its purely based on inverse-square, watt per kg and and thermal heating of tissue which is the only known mechanism which cellphone RF frequencies can cause tissue damage and only at orders of magnitude more power levels.
    - forum_ghost 5y ago
      It's too long of a reasoning chain, maybe that's why it's not obvious? it is also an underfunded area of ongoing research with not enough publications, one paper mentioned only 90 papers are published on this specific issue, which is a tiny number, but seems about right. So anyway, the mechanism: "emf does penetrate skin few mm deep" > "that's deep enough to hit mast cells and small nerve fibers" > "we have plenty of evidence non-ionizing radiation can cause mast cell degranulation"/"we have evidence EMF can produce current in nerves" > "mast cells drive inflammation" > "inflammation causes DNA damage and increase risks of cancer." Any of these steps seem controversial to you? you can verify them independently easily. Maybe claim #3. Plenty of papers on that: https://scielo.conicyt.cl/pdf/ijmorphol/v37n2/0717-9502-ijmorphol-37-02-00719.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0891061816300576 the only real question that remains is how big of an effect this will have on humans. Cars kill over a million EVERY year. Every 5 years we kill as many people as this pandemic. Nobody seems to particularly care. Maybe it will be a small effect, maybe it will kill millions per year, but it seems everyone has made up their minds either way, and unless people start dropping dead in the streets nobody will change their mind.
nuvious 5y ago
> There are theories that radio waves can activate small nerve fibres that are located closely to the edge of your skin, where EMF can penetrate, even if only couple millimetres deep. Great. Can you provide a reference to this premise at all? There are theories doesn't mean there are verifiable observations to support them. You based your entire argument on this, and eventually connected to a WebMD reference to a condition caused by exposure to solar energy... ...which is orders and orders of more magnitude greater energy than microwave transmitters used in cell phone... ...also a cell phone transmitter maxes out at 1 watt to the antenna and solar energy at the earth's surface is 1000 watts per meter... ...oh yeah, and SOLAR FLUX UNCLUDES UV RADIATION WHICH IS IONIZING RADIATION! Provide a peer reviewed reference to your proposed mechanism that actually connects it to damage in DNA that leads to cancer in the context of cell phones please.
- forum_ghost 5y ago
  Solar urticaria has nothing to do with ionizing radiation. as per the CDC, UVA is not ionizing. You can review this on cdc.gov, and maybe inform them they are wrong? A discovery that ionizing radiation is the causative factor of anaphylaxis in solar urticaria would probably get you quite a few awards. Looking forward to your contributions to health sciences. It also doesn't matter, as the same occurs with infrared: google "heat urticaria". def not ionizing? You can use this link www.google.com to confirm, and also this one maybe: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov maybe also google "cold urticaria"? is negative (inverse?) infrared ionizing? Pressure urticaria is also cool, no radiation required at all. Given the subject matter at hand is quite involved and requires fairly up to date expertise in neurology, allergy and immunology, oncology and dermatology to be able to evaluate mechanisms at hand, I have prepared for you a decent list of peer reviewed materials to begin your preparation: a) ISBN: 0-87893-106-6 b) ISBN: 9780123851574 c) ISBN: 9780199558322 d) ISBN: 978-1-62618-166-3 e) ISBN: 978-92-4-157238-5 f) ISBN: 3034808372 g) ISBN: 9783034808378 h) ISBN: 978-92-76-29839-7 Once you have covered the basics in the above peer reviewed literature, most of which is even approved for training, you will then have no difficulty at all accepting the following: 1) Mast cells are located at the junction point of the host and external environment. 2) EMF penetrates into the skin tissue by several millimiters. 3) There is voluminous clinical evidence of mast cell degranulation by non-ionizing radiation 4) Mast cells produce inflammation, both local AND systemic. 5) Chronic inflammation causes DNA damage and increases risks of cancer and many other diseases. Clinical implications of the interplay between EMF and mast cells is an ongoing area of research. There is like less than 90 papers published on this specific topic, which is miniscule. However, you should not review those papers until after you completed with basics. Looking forward to your contributions.

SigmundA 5y ago

Cellphone transmitters are not coherent, they are like LED christmas decorations except lower power.

ncmncm 5y ago
False. Again.
- SigmundA 5y ago
  Really so cellphones are actually microwave lasers, cool!
  - alexvoda 5y ago
    We do actually have microwave lasers, which IIRC predate lasers, called masers. Of course, there is no cellphone equipped with such a thing.
    - nuvious 5y ago
      Masers are cool. My dad worked in an optics lab that used Masers in college and they used Styrofoam for lenses because it's transparent in the microwave spectrum and induces refraction well.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
forum_ghost 5y ago
>Cellphone transmitters are not coherent, they are like LED christmas decorations except lower power. The point is neither one produces ionizing radiation. There are other mechanisms by which non-ionizing radiation can induce cancers, such as the one I've described.
- SigmundA 5y ago
  >There are other mechanisms by which non-ionizing radiation can induce cancers, such as the one I've described. Link please, there are no proven mechanisms such as you describe I am aware of. Your only link points to sun exposure and UVB rays which are near ionizing and cause cancer through DNA damage based on photon energy. Your example of a laser vs led is on point because its purely based on inverse-square, watt per kg and and thermal heating of tissue which is the only known mechanism which cellphone RF frequencies can cause tissue damage and only at orders of magnitude more power levels.
  - forum_ghost 5y ago
    It's too long of a reasoning chain, maybe that's why it's not obvious? it is also an underfunded area of ongoing research with not enough publications, one paper mentioned only 90 papers are published on this specific issue, which is a tiny number, but seems about right. So anyway, the mechanism: "emf does penetrate skin few mm deep" > "that's deep enough to hit mast cells and small nerve fibers" > "we have plenty of evidence non-ionizing radiation can cause mast cell degranulation"/"we have evidence EMF can produce current in nerves" > "mast cells drive inflammation" > "inflammation causes DNA damage and increase risks of cancer." Any of these steps seem controversial to you? you can verify them independently easily. Maybe claim #3. Plenty of papers on that: https://scielo.conicyt.cl/pdf/ijmorphol/v37n2/0717-9502-ijmorphol-37-02-00719.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0891061816300576 the only real question that remains is how big of an effect this will have on humans. Cars kill over a million EVERY year. Every 5 years we kill as many people as this pandemic. Nobody seems to particularly care. Maybe it will be a small effect, maybe it will kill millions per year, but it seems everyone has made up their minds either way, and unless people start dropping dead in the streets nobody will change their mind.

nuvious 5y ago

> There are theories that radio waves can activate small nerve fibres that are located closely to the edge of your skin, where EMF can penetrate, even if only couple millimetres deep. Great. Can you provide a reference to this premise at all? There are theories doesn't mean there are verifiable observations to support them. You based your entire argument on this, and eventually connected to a WebMD reference to a condition caused by exposure to solar energy... ...which is orders and orders of more magnitude greater energy than microwave transmitters used in cell phone... ...also a cell phone transmitter maxes out at 1 watt to the antenna and solar energy at the earth's surface is 1000 watts per meter... ...oh yeah, and SOLAR FLUX UNCLUDES UV RADIATION WHICH IS IONIZING RADIATION! Provide a peer reviewed reference to your proposed mechanism that actually connects it to damage in DNA that leads to cancer in the context of cell phones please.

forum_ghost 5y ago
Solar urticaria has nothing to do with ionizing radiation. as per the CDC, UVA is not ionizing. You can review this on cdc.gov, and maybe inform them they are wrong? A discovery that ionizing radiation is the causative factor of anaphylaxis in solar urticaria would probably get you quite a few awards. Looking forward to your contributions to health sciences. It also doesn't matter, as the same occurs with infrared: google "heat urticaria". def not ionizing? You can use this link www.google.com to confirm, and also this one maybe: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov maybe also google "cold urticaria"? is negative (inverse?) infrared ionizing? Pressure urticaria is also cool, no radiation required at all. Given the subject matter at hand is quite involved and requires fairly up to date expertise in neurology, allergy and immunology, oncology and dermatology to be able to evaluate mechanisms at hand, I have prepared for you a decent list of peer reviewed materials to begin your preparation: a) ISBN: 0-87893-106-6 b) ISBN: 9780123851574 c) ISBN: 9780199558322 d) ISBN: 978-1-62618-166-3 e) ISBN: 978-92-4-157238-5 f) ISBN: 3034808372 g) ISBN: 9783034808378 h) ISBN: 978-92-76-29839-7 Once you have covered the basics in the above peer reviewed literature, most of which is even approved for training, you will then have no difficulty at all accepting the following: 1) Mast cells are located at the junction point of the host and external environment. 2) EMF penetrates into the skin tissue by several millimiters. 3) There is voluminous clinical evidence of mast cell degranulation by non-ionizing radiation 4) Mast cells produce inflammation, both local AND systemic. 5) Chronic inflammation causes DNA damage and increases risks of cancer and many other diseases. Clinical implications of the interplay between EMF and mast cells is an ongoing area of research. There is like less than 90 papers published on this specific topic, which is miniscule. However, you should not review those papers until after you completed with basics. Looking forward to your contributions.